bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (12/21/89)
Damn duplications. I doubt the vote. --Blair "And you know what we did to Noriega when _he_ fixed an election."
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/21/89)
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >I doubt the vote. If you doubted the vote, Blair, you should have brought it up during the five day period set aside for that. Since the vote looked reasonable and since no challenges were brought up, it's legitimate. And now it's a little too late to be challenging things. It's all in the guidelines... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] For herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue and sin. Do after the good and leave the evil, and it shall bring you to good fame and renown. -- Malory
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (12/21/89)
In article <37434@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > > >I doubt the vote. > > If you doubted the vote, Blair, you should have brought it up during the > five day period set aside for that. Since the vote looked reasonable and > since no challenges were brought up, it's legitimate. And now it's a little > too late to be challenging things. Was it a VOTE or a POLL? You've called it both. Of course it doesn't really matter now since you've created the group. > It's all in the guidelines... Ahahahahahah. Yeah right. Dave
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (12/22/89)
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >Was it a VOTE or a POLL? >You've called it both. Either. Both. Does it matter? If it looks like a vote and quacks like a vote and smells like a vote... >> It's all in the guidelines... >Ahahahahahah. Yeah right. Remember, they're only guidelines. That's the mantra of USENET. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] An argument requires two voices. Without the opposition, it's just a whine. To argue, you have to listen to and rebut the opposition. Most USENET arguments aren't. They're simply two monologues happening at once.
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (12/22/89)
In article <37477@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > >>> It's all in the guidelines... > >>Ahahahahahah. Yeah right. > >Remember, they're only guidelines. That's the mantra of USENET. Except when they're called rules. Remember: If it quacks, it's a TAX. Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (12/27/89)
In article <37477@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Either. Both. Does it matter? If it looks like a vote and quacks like a vote >and smells like a vote... But it started out as an opinion poll on the appropriate name for a existing newsgroup and then magically turned into a vote for the creation of another newsgroup. Even netters like Ben Chase who want to see sci.aquaria removed (BBC.89Dec14164631@nysa.rice.edu) thought Peter was taking an opinion poll and not a vote. Of course, if Peter had held an actual discussion period on his "poll" so that he could explain what he intended to do with the results this confusion would have been avoided. >Remember, they're only guidelines. That's the mantra of USENET. And remember, according to Peter da Silva, the guidelines may be ig- nored at any time as long as you do so in accordance with Peter's notion of "common sense."
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (01/03/90)
In article <10750@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <37477@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Either. Both. Does it matter? If it looks like a vote and quacks like a vote >>and smells like a vote... >But it started out as an opinion poll on the appropriate name for a >existing newsgroup and then magically turned into a vote for the >creation of another newsgroup. If the question that you're asking, Patricia, is "Is this "vote" a special case that, if applied to any other situation, will get you flamed to a crisp?" then the answer is YES. Don't expect to ever be able to conduct a no-discussion 'poll' in the future and, at the last minute, call it a vote. Oh, yes, we all know about the "discussion", but as I've seen before, a discussion isn't a discussion, unless it's "formal". But hey, who really cares? I think it's a scream that Richard got these guys to create him Yet Another News Group (YANG). I shudder to think what Richard could do in a National Election, with the way he got his opponents, here, to work for him. Perhaps, we should all be glad that Richard spends his time here. >>Remember, they're only guidelines. That's the mantra of USENET. >And remember, according to Peter da Silva, the guidelines may be ig- >nored at any time as long as you do so in accordance with Peter's >notion of "common sense." Don't expect consistancy when dealing with a YANG! If you want to apply this new unwritten "rule" of USENET, you have to get Richard to set the stage first! ;-) Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/03/90)
In article <21353@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) writes: > I shudder to think what Richard could do in a National Election, with > the way he got his opponents, here, to work for him. Perhaps, we should > all be glad that Richard spends his time here. We'd never know. The election reporting consortium would not only not report his votes, it would fraudulently report the percentages of his Democratic and Republican opponents to equal 100. Jeff PS - Trisha, I deleted your last msg by mistake. Please re-send. PPS - Has anyone tabulated how many sites carry Richard's con.aquaria vs. how many carry Peter's rec.aquaria? -- "You can't add cold. You can only take away heat." -- Stan Fine, co-developer of Fino-Cardian Math
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (01/04/90)
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >PPS - Has anyone tabulated how many sites carry Richard's > con.aquaria vs. how many carry Peter's rec.aquaria? The stats from Brian show: Alt.aquaria 77% distribution, sci.aquaria 53% and rec.aquaria 19%. The latter isn't to be given too much weight, since it takes a month or two for the stats to settle out for a new newsgroup (for instance, in Novemember, sci.aquaria was somewhere around 35%). I doubt sci.aquaria's distribution will go up much more, and I have no idea where rec.aquaria will end up. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] An argument requires two voices. Without the opposition, it's just a whine. To argue, you have to listen to and rebut the opposition. Most USENET arguments aren't. They're simply two monologues happening at once.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/04/90)
In article <21353@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood) writes: >If the question that you're asking, Patricia, is "Is this "vote" a >special case that, if applied to any other situation, will get you >flamed to a crisp?" then the answer is YES. Don't expect to ever be >able to conduct a no-discussion 'poll' in the future and, at the last >minute, call it a vote. Actually, Terry, my question was rhetorical, but thank you for writ- ing this. And I agree, watching the Bobsey Twins' plan backfire has been most amusing as well as enlightening. yours for nets and mods, . t r i s h a o t u a m a